If you were travelling at 108 mph, as has been reported widely, without a seatbelt, as has been alleged by the State Police, how did you survive the wreck that trashed your car? How, indeed, did you walk away without any lasting harm?
Are you a superhero? Do you have a wolverine type adamantium skeleton? Because it’s statistically quite likely that after a 108mph crash in which you were not wearing a seatbelt you’d spend the rest of your natural life dead. And it is HIGHLY unlikely that you’d be able to walk away from that crash if you did survive. Maybe you were once bitten by a radioactive politician and now possess powers beyond that of mortal men…
…But I doubt it.
What seems much more likely is that A) you were, indeed, wearing your seatbelt and 2) the car never reached speeds of 108mph.
Why then, one has to ask, are we hearing otherwise? Probably because whomever it is who is feeding this information to the media has a distinct animus towards you, Lt Gov Murray and because the reporters who are lapping up these patently ridiculous claims believes the general populace to be bloodthirsty morons who’ll be equally as creduluous as they, when vetting the news.
I believe your story, Tim Murray. I think you fell asleep and crashed at around 40/50 miles per hour. The seatbelt you must have been wearing, in combination with the airbag, saved your life and allowed you to walk away nearly unscathed…
I do not believe that you could walk away from an 108mph crash even if you were wearing a seatbelt, and I don’t believe that you’d be alive if you were not wearing a seatbelt.
I believe that the utterly crass, distinctly craven, and entirely morally bankrupt media has been fed a wild series of lies by someone who wants to make you look bad and that these loons in the media have lapped it up without even the merest whiff of critical analysis of any kind.
This is the first logical thing I’ve read about the accident. No one but no one ends up with a couple scratches from a wreck like that.
And so what if he fell asleep at the wheel. The press could be writing about the dangers of driving drowsy instead of churning out rumors that will ruin a good man’s career.
The Herald is driving this wreck and others are on the bandwagon.
following the destroyed car. Somewhere out there is the real driver, killed or injured.
See what happens when you weave a tangled web?
People starting making things up.
…. with his razor.
I picture merrimackguy building a recreation of the stretch of highway in the basement, filming toy cars he pushes through them in slow motion, and raving about the results on YouTube.
The real Tim is somewhere hospitalized, this person is obviously a look-a-like taking Tim’s place so that Bill Galvin who’s next in line of succession doesn’t get any more power. It’s obvious, you just need to look at it rationally.
Having fun yet?
thanks for the reality check.
And that is exactly what I am getting at!
His story was too contrived and not simple at all.
You should watch Dateline where they feature some murder investigation and the husband says “She often like to take walks down by the dock at night. She’s must have slipped and hit her head.”
You, like me would be hearing the LG’s “I often get up very early in the morning and go for a drive. I have for years”
I’m not saying the two cars story makes sense, but these are thoughts I am hearing, so I am only pointing out that amongst the general population, anyone following the official story has some misgivings.
Here’s a hint: try not to foist illogical and far-fetched stories as proof of logical consistency. It just doesn’t work and it makes you look like an idiot with a vendetta lust. Of course, if you are an idiot with a vendetta lust, feel free to carry on…
As I detailed in another post, I myself (when I owned a car) often used to get up early in the morning and go for a drive. Absent a car, I walk. What’s so difficult to believe about that. A long history of waking at 4:30 or 5:00 Am means that, if I’m awakened, I often cannot get back to sleep and shortly stop trying. This is neither far-fetched nor nefarious. Early risers are a staple of working class life.
My grandparents had a routine: my grandmother would clean the coffe percolator and fill it with fresh ground at 11:30 at night prior to her going to bed, and my grandfather would, upon rising at 4:00, plug it in and go do his morning shave. By the time he was done with his morning ablutions the coffe would be done. He did this with great regularity for over sixty years.
The difference between he and I is that I don’t shave (big bushy beard!!) and I go out to get my coffee. Early in the morning is best.
Why is it so difficult to believe? Hint: it’s not, if you’re willing to be rational.
and your grandparents didn’t drive in their pajamas.
His statements were crafted to reinforce what he perceived as inconsistencies.
Why were you up? Couldn’t sleep, wanted coffee, newspaper,inspect storm damage, totally normal because I take early drives, always have.
Why did you crash? Black ice.
And so on.
Eventually we’ll know what happened. Not everyone in the pursuit of truth is an idiot.
Most everybody, however, in pursuit of a calumny is a fool
I think more people go out for drives like that than you’d realize, me included. I drove 40 minutes for a cup of coffee today, in fact.
However, your premise is that the cops are making him look bad? It’s MORE likely that a man who can influence their budget is being set up?
… whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the answer. So says Sherlock Holmes and so say I.
I contend that it is impossible to survive, completely unscathed, an 108mph crash without a seatbelt.
IT. IS. NOT. POSSIBLE.
So, however improbable it may seem, the speed is incorrect, or the accusation that he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt is incorrect, or both…
It is, however, entirely possible that the black box data is simply incorrect and, in a rush to make political use of this information, nobody bothered to check it. That is to say, no specific ill intent may attend the initial release of the information only the follow-on media pileup. The ‘set up’, such as it may be, might be purely opportunistic. I dunno.
But I do know that if Tim Murray actually did crash a Ford Crown Vic at 108 miles per hour without a seat belt…. he wouldn’t be walking around today. It’s as simple as that.
that someone could fall asleep at the wheel of a car going over 100 mph.
How about that?
How fast are the cars going on NASCAR tracks? Granted those guys (and Danica) have better protection, but I’m not expert here.
And exactly how would one check the black box? (I didn’t know state cars had black boxes, by the way.)
I still say that if he fell asleep at the wheel there is a conspiracy going on to protect Dunkin Donuts. Who, after having a hot cup of Dunkin coffee, falls asleep at the wheel? Someone clearly gave him decaf and that information is being kept secret for some reason.
he set a pretty high bar for slander of public officials, and I would assume that would include calumny.
That’s your reply? That you have wiggle room and might not be, legally, lying…?
Speaks volumes.
I never seem to succeed with it myself, and I love it when I see it.
However, these things happen. My brother managed to total my car a few years ago and walked away unharmed. When I saw the car a couple days later I was amazed that my brother had not been seriously injured.
so the state of the car isn’t, per se, indicative of the speed of the crash.
I bet he was wearing a seat belt…
Not sure this quite passes the Occam test either. But God knowsI I’m a fan of conspiracy theories- they’re not boring, as hlpeary has noted.
This thing is eeriely similar to an old x-files episode. I belive Tim was abducted by aliens then placed back in the already crashed car. As a good patriotic american he is merely repeating the cover story supplied to him by secret operatives who arrived in a black helicopter to sanatize the entire incident. Tim’s taking one for the team. The operatives of course work for Ron Paul.
How would you explain the black box data? What’s more likely, that there’s some bizarre conspiracy going on here, targeting the Lt. Governor of all people, or he actually fell asleep at the wheel? I’m going to go with door number 2.
And I don’t think many people at all think this will “ruin” his career. It was a car accident and he wasn’t drunk.
The 2007 Ford Crown Vic is a rear wheel drive car. It’s built as a police cruiser. That’s why it has a ‘black box’ to begin with (most cars don’t). This black box measures, among other things, acceleration, speed and steering angle. The speed however, isn’t ‘true speed’, but rather a measure of either tire rotation or transmission speed… The report states that the car was speeding up as it was riding off the road and onto slick grass, for about 140 feet. It’s not plausible that a rear wheel drive car accellerated on icy, snowy, grass for 140 feet. I might believe that on even moderately wet asphalt, but not snowy, icy, frozen grass. The only way to measure absolute speed, from inside the car, would be to use integrated GPS, which I don’t believe is present in the box on a Crown Vic.
Rear wheel drive cars are particularly dicey on slick roads, and even wonkier on slick grass, as any New Englander who’s driven one can attest, so the acceleration data might be a function of the side-to-side slide rather than straight up speed as a function of throttle depression.
It’s plausible that the tires were spinning at what ought to be 108mph, over frictionless icy patches of slick grass and so registered that speed.
What I find completely implausible is that a rear wheel drive, amongst the twists of route 190, on an icy cold morning, could accelerate to 108 mph over 140 feet of icy, slick, frictionless grass: the car is too unstable to do so without a skilled, alert, driver and the distance over frictionless grass is too great.
And its equally implausible that a man without a seat belt could survive a 108mph crash; the airbag deployment alone, sans seatbelt, would crush his sternum.
The “acceleration” indicated in the black box data is impossible for a Crown Victoria, as noted in my comment on the other thread.
I’m not an accident reconstruction specialist, and I don’t even play one on television. I do, however, have an engineering degree and I think I haven’t completely forgotten my basic physics.
The speed graph from the black box data shows the vehicle accelerating from about 90 MPH to 100 MPH in about 0.8 seconds. The most aggressively motored Crown Vic’s do 60-100 in 12-14 seconds. Perhaps I’m making a bonehead mistake here, but I’m pretty sure that 10 MPH (90 to 100) is about 25% of the 60-100 interval, and 25% of 12 seconds is THREE seconds. The black box says Mr. Murray’s vehicle did that in 0.8 seconds, more than three times the acceleration of the hottest models measured.
Sorry, but no dice. The wheels were spinning. End of story.
Occam’s razor would suggest it’s far more likely you have no effing clue what you’re talking about than that the state police are conspiring against Murray or are too incompetent to know the difference between the raw black box data and the actual speed. The police found the actual speed was 108 mph. Not the raw data. The police report.
I also question your basis for assuming he wouldn’t survive the crash. Are you a cop? A doctor? I’ll give you partial credit if you’re an engineer or physicist and have actually run some numbers on this. But it looks like you’re just making assumptions you want to believe, that don’t fit the data.
I could give you my CV, which is impressive, but then it would be about me, and not the facts. Let us, instead, try a little thought experiment: How’s about you get in a car and go hit a rocky outcropping at 108mph…. do you think you would survive? What are your credentials for this belief? Do you have a doctorate in physics and a MD? Why don’t you try it and see?
Of course you won’t try it. You’d be a fool to do so and you know why.
Somebody is lying. The stories don’t meet the facts. You appear to be comfortable in the belief that it is Tim Murray who is lying. I’m not at all comfortable with that… It is you who is not questioning their own assumptions
The truth, no doubt, is out there.
You are trying to make a claim that unlikely=impossible. You’re also using false numbers to do it. He hit the ledge going 92, not 108. 108 was the speed prior to that.
I agree that surviving such a crash unscathed is unlikely. But I think it’s more likely than a police conspiracy against the LG. You’re the one making extraordinary claims. You need extraordinary evidence to prove them. You haven’t presented any evidence, other than your gut feeling, which doesn’t carry a lot of weight unless you have some basis for making a professional judgment that’s relevant.
As for proof that survival is possible, see an example of an even more dangerous crash: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/08/21/dnt.lee.chase.ksl
And another one: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2975200/Victoria-Cross-hero-Johnson-Beharry-tried-to-commit-suicide.html
I have crashed a motorcycle at over 110 mph and walked away. I did not hit anything, though. If I had, I have no doubt I would have been killed. If I had been in a car with or without seatbelt and run into an immovable object at anything like that speed, I have no doubt I would have been killed.
My basis for these assumptions is over fifty years of observing at second- and third-hand what sorts of accidents do and don’t kill people. You may call that no basis at all, but I think that would be unreasonable, and I would ignore it.
You have it exactly backwards: I’m the one refuting an extraordinary claim; specifically, the claim that a man can walk away unscathed from a 108mph crash when he was not secured by a seat belt. If you want to posit that it was 92mph rather than 108mph, I still contend that it remains a fantastic claim. If he wasn’t wearing his seatbelt then the statistical likelihood of either death or grievous bodily harm is QUITE HIGH…
THEREFORE I can posit any one of the following, perfectly ordinary, statistically more likely and entirely plausible, claims. To wit, that Tim Murray was either:
NOT travelling at 108mph (nor at 92mph)
OR
He WAS properly secured by a seatbelt
OR
He was BOTH properly secured and NOT travelling at 108mph.
I further refute the implicit claim that the car ACCELERATED to that speed over 140 feet of frictionless snow and ice covered grass after allegedly losing control on asphalt. It is not possible for a rear-wheel drive car to get sufficient grip, while remaining in control, on that kind of surface at those speeds.
From these perfectly ordinary and entirely plausible scenarios I infer the improbable, but not impossible, likelihood that someone is lying about either the speed of the car and/or the state of the seatbelts in the car. I further state the inference of both negligence and incompetence on the part of a gullible media who’ve swallowed the fantastic claim wholesale. One does not have to look very much farther to see many many more instances of a gullible, wholly negligent, and incompetent media so I don’t think that claim is all that fantastic either…
And your cite about the British veteran who tried to commit suicide omits mention of whether or no he was wearing his seat belt. It does, however, make note of the fact that the man was struck unconscious and spent a week in the hospital as a result which bolsters my argument and undercuts yours. How much time did Tim Murray stay in hospital? It’s OK, you can say it…. None. THat’s right. None. He was lucid at the scene, having the presence of mind to request a breathalyzer right then and there…. and then he went on to have a full, regular, workday. Which is good, because there was a state of emergency in force at the time.
Clearly, the odds of dying when crashing onto the rocky outcropping is strictly greater than 0. Therefore, you’re $10,000 bet is a stupid one — nobody short of a professional stuntman or a suicidal would do it in purpose.
However, it’s clearly not 100%. More than 90%? Probably. So Tim Murray got lucky. It happens. Maybe he was wearing a seat belt and the black box missed it; maybe he wasn’t and things just worked out. Neither is likely, but both are quite likely given that he didn’t die. I don’t think anybody is lying, just that Lt. Gov Murray is, to use the phrase, one lucky SOB.
Look at the chart again. The “108 MPH” is the peak of the speed graph. As I noted above, that speed graph shows impossible acceleration for a Crown Victoria.
Its wheel’s were spinning, just as Petr said. No “effing” required.
Look again at the green “Accelerator Pedal” graph, and look at what happens to the speed. The accelerator pedal is floored for about a second (who knows why) and the speed barely changes. At about the same time the tires lose traction and start to spin, he gets off the pedal.
I suggest that this data shows that wheels lost traction and began to spin about t=-6 sec, and were spinning until he hit the wall. You can see the indicated speed dip a little (fishtailing and gaining a little traction?) then continue its impossibly high acceleration.
You don’t have to be an accident reconstruction specialist to figure out that this vehicle could not have done what the black box — and therefore the police report — says it did.
You don’t even need Occam’s razor. Instead, you need a high school physics refresher.
That acceleration was 11 mph and happened over 1.6 seconds, not .8. http://www1.whdh.com/pdf/2011-CAR-Lt-GOV-Murray-2
When you just start using numbers based in fact I’ll address the rest of your post.
Perhaps it was 11, instead of 10.
Surely you can count the dots on the speed graph as well as me. The speed graph has sharp inflection point at the dot to the left of the nearly-vertical blue line. It proceeds sharply upward for four intervals (spaces between dots), climbing 10 (or 11) MPH in those four intervals. If you read item 6 on page 2 of your chart, you find “The data points occur every 0.2 seconds”. The interval in question is 0.8 seconds (four intervals).
After a brief (0.4 sec) decline, the speed curve again tilts upward at an impossibly high acceleration, from ~95 up to its maximum of 108 in just three intervals — 0.6 seconds.
One of us is mis-reading this data. I don’t think it’s me.
I refer you the table on page 6 of your cite, in the “Relative Time (calc.)” and “Speed, Vehicle Indicated (MPH [km/h])” columns:
t=-5.6 speed=91 [146]
t=-5.4 speed=93 [150]
t=-5.2 speed=95 [153]
5=-5.0 speed=97 [156]
t=-4.8 speed=100 [161]
The change in speed is 9 MPH (not 11). The time delta is 0.8 sec, not 1.6. This acceleration — 16.5 f/s^2 — is 3.4 times the best measured performance for this vehicle (4.8 ft/s^2).
As previously noted, there are two subsequent samples during which the indicated speed drops. I then call your attention to the period from -4.4 to -3.8 seconds:
t=-4.4 speed=97 [156]
t=-4.2 speed=102 [164]
5=-4.0 speed=104 [167]
t=-3.8 speed=108 [174]
This time, the change in speed is 11 MPH. The time delta this time is 0.6 seconds, not 1.6 seconds. This acceleration — a whopping 26.89 f/s^2 — is more than five times (5.60x) the best measured performance.
Finally, I call your attention to item 8 on page 2 (emphasis mine):
We should another caveat to the above quote: “… or the wheels are spinning.” When the wheels spin, the Recorded Vehicle Speed climbs accordingly, with no change in actual vehicle speed.
This vehicle was NOT going over 100 MPH when it hit. The real scandal in this non-story is the apparent inability (or unwillingness) of the police, the journalistic community, and even some members of this community to confront the actual physics. The “black box” says “108 MPH”, so the vehicle MUST have been going that fast. Right? Wrong.
This apparent inability (or unwillingness) to confront the actual physics resonates, for me, with our strikingly similar inability or unwillingness to confront the actual physics of climate change.
Physics is real. This vehicle could not have done what the police and media say; the black box tells us so (when read carefully). We apparently prefer the hysteria of a “scandal” to the truth.
Also, does ABS mean antilock brake system? If so, it supports the skidding to get to 108 mpg theory — check out when it comes on.
Also, check out t-16 seconds… big push on the accelerator, no corresponding increase in speed. Did he juice the gas for a smidge, or did he skid, or what?
It’s hinted at in the legend on the left margin, and omitted (for some reason) from the key at the bottom. I’ve been interpreting “ABS” to mean anti-lock brake system.
I noticed the bump at t-16 seconds as well. I wonder if perhaps we’re seeing the “passing gear” kick in … big accelerator push, immediate increase in RPM to a higher level, that then shifts back into normal at t-14. The shape of the RPM curve is about the same for the interval from t-16 to t-14 as the interval from t-8 to t-6, each simultaneous with flooring the accelerator. In the earlier episode, the accelerator is immediately released. In the latter, it stays depressed until the wheels lose adhesion at t-5.8. He then hits the brakes at t-5.6. The ABS keeps the brakes off during the skid (except for the brief pulse at t-3.6 and t-3.2).
I’m glad somebody else who understands data is looking at this graph, I was feeling a bit lonely 🙂
Don’t we need a woman for this story to be any good? A secretary or campaign worker who was in the car at the same time?
You should re-write your satire and include a female named Mary Jo.
It just seems like the Mass Democratic car wreck scandals are nowhere as good as they used to be.
We learned that people who one might suppose are environmentally friendly are willing to consume a gallon of gas and stomp a big carbon footprint to get a $2.00 cup of coffee. They also still like to “take a drive” as recreation. I might be older than most, because I stopped these behaviors during the second 70’s gas crisis, about the same time I stopped leaving the water running when I brushed my teeth. Save the planet- buy a coffee pot. Also, if you drive 40 minutes to get a cup of coffee- how much do you value your time? Maybe you are unemployed.
We learned that there are a lot of people driving and wearing their pajamas. These same people also seemed challenged to tell the difference between sweats and flannels (though I will admit I used to see teens wearing these, but they’re out with that crowd, which means that it’s okay for mom & dad).
We learned that MA is a socks optional state in all weather. So much for hardy sensible New Englanders- style over smarts! Note that I hate the socks as well, but I get disapproving looks at work, particularly in spring and fall.
We learned something about physics, which is good I suppose. I did hear another theory last night which is that Murray was trying to rush to Leominster and back without his wife waking up, which would explain the timing, the clothing, and some of the high rate of speed when the accident sequence commenced. No speculation on why he needed to go there in the first place.
What we learned about you is that you are obsessed with spreading false rumors about the Lt. Gov. and we suspect that you have a very vested interest in doing so…and I’ll bet you actually think that no one is on to your act. You are wrong. I am sure you will have many more I heard another one last night” posts before you are through…but, your credibility is already blown.
It doesn’t sound like you learned anything about the physics at all. The vehicle wasn’t going anything near 100 MPH, and the accident was just what he says it was: an accident, caused by a slick road.
Your silly attempt at innuendo fails even by the impossibly low standards of the old National Enquirer.
But however, the LG’s credibility is certainly blown, and I am sure it will get worse before it gets better.
Wear socks in the winter, and boots if there’s snow.
Brew coffee in a pot at home.
Never wear pajamas in the car.
Oh and I never go out for the paper. If I get up too early and feel like reading it before it arrives, I read it on my phone.